ORIGIN OF THE TERM LYNCH-LAW
Many and various explanations of the origin of the term Lynch’s law, or
lynch-law, have been offered. Some of these explanations are evidently
nothing more than the offspring of minds fertile in resources; others
have the support of tradition and are entitled to consideration. Not
infrequently confusion and apparent contradiction have resulted from the
failure to distinguish clearly between the practice itself and the name
by which it has been known. To follow back through history the
successive outbreaks of such practices is not to discover the origin of
“lynch-law,” the term which has now become so firmly established in the
English language. The origin is to be found at that time when these
practices first came to be known by the name Lynch’s law or lynch-law.
According to one account, given more or less indorsement in the
encyclopedias, lynch-law owes its name to James Fitzstephen Lynch, mayor
and warden of Galway, Ireland. He was the famous “Warden of Galway” who
tried, condemned, and executed his own son in the year 1493. The story
is told with varying details. One tradition has it that the mayor sent
his son to Spain to purchase a cargo of wine. The young man squandered
the money intrusted to him, but succeeded in obtaining a cargo on credit
from a Spanish friend of his father. This gentleman’s nephew accompanied
him on the return voyage to Ireland where the money was to be paid.
Young Lynch, to conceal his misuse of the money, caused the Spaniard to
be thrown overboard and returned home in triumph with his cargo of wine.
But a sailor, on his death-bed, revealed to the mayor of Galway the
crime which his son had committed. The young man was tried before his
father, convicted and sentenced to be hanged. Another tradition states
that the son of the Spanish friend of his father was visiting him at his
home in Ireland. This son was fast supplanting him in the affections of
a Galway lady to whom he was engaged. One night, in a fit of jealous
passion, he stabbed the Spaniard to the heart and threw his body into
the sea. The crime was quickly discovered, and on being brought before
his father for trial he was condemned to die as a sacrifice to public
justice. Public sympathy, however, turned in favor of the young man, and
every effort was made to effect his pardon. The father “undauntedly
declared that the law should take its course.” On the way to the place
of execution a mob appeared, led by members of the mother’s family,
demanding mercy. The father, finding that he could not “accomplish the
ends of justice at the accustomed place and by the usual hands,”
conducted his son up a winding stairway to a window overlooking the
public street. “Here he secured the end of a rope, which had been
previously fixed around the neck of his son, to an iron staple which
projected from the wall, and, after taking from him a last embrace, he
launched him into eternity.” The people, “overawed by the magnanimous
act, retired slowly and peaceably to their several dwellings.” In the
council books of Galway there is said to be a minute that “James Lynch,
mayor of Galway, hanged his own son out of the window for defrauding and
killing strangers, without martial or common law, to show a good example
to posterity.” In commemoration of this “Roman act of justice,” a stone
sculptured with a skull and crossbones was erected in Lombard Street,
Galway, in 1524, and in 1854 was reerected on the wall of St. Nicholas
Churchyard.[15]
This “Galway story” may be dismissed with but little consideration.
Howell Colton Featherston of the Lynchburg (Va.) Bar has clearly shown
that this act of the mayor of Galway was entirely without any definition
ever attached to lynch-law and that there was no reason for bestowing
upon it any name, and more particularly his name. Mayor Lynch was the
legally constituted authority presiding over the tribunal in which his
son had had, presumably, a fair and regular trial. He merely persisted
in executing the laws in the face of popular opposition and tumult.
Lynch-law has always been considered as operating wholly without, or in
opposition to, established laws of government.[16]
Equally fanciful and fictitious but less romantic is the “pirate story”
of the origin of the name lynch-law. It is said that about 1687 one
Lynch was sent to this country from England under a commission to
suppress piracy. He is credited with having faithfully executed, without
the formality of a trial, every pirate that he captured. It is presumed
that owing to the difficulty of adhering to the usual forms of law in
the colonies, this Judge Lynch was empowered to proceed summarily
against pirates and thus gave rise to the term.[17] But whatever the
facts may be about the methods employed by this man Lynch to suppress
piracy,[18] there is no evidence to show that they were ever known as
Lynch’s law or had any connection whatever with lynch-law.
On its etymological side the word lynch has been traced to an old
Anglo-Saxon verb _linch_, meaning to beat severely with a pliable
instrument, to chastise or to maltreat, which is said to have survived
in this cognate meaning in America, as have many other words and
expressions long obsolete in Great Britain.[19] For this derivation,
however, there seems to be no authority. There is no evidence that such
a verb “survived” in America; nor is there any evidence that such an
Anglo-Saxon verb ever existed.[20] According to Skeat the name Lynch is
from _hlinc_, an Anlgo-Saxon word meaning a ridge of land.[21]
Furthermore, as was noted in the preceding chapter, when the word lynch
first came into general use, it was stamped as of American origin.[22]
No English lexicographer recognized the terms lynch or lynch-law until
1848, and in 1849 Craig gave the verb “lynch” as meaning “to punish
summarily without judicial investigation, as by a mob.—An American
word.”[23] The fact that Wright’s English Dialect Dictionary (1902) does
not contain the word lynch, and the further fact that Murray’s Oxford
Dictionary (1903) states that the term was originally used in the United
States, may be regarded as conclusive evidence that the origin of
“lynch-law” is not to be sought in England.
There is a tradition in the Drake family of South Carolina which
ascribes the origin of the term to the precipitate hanging, to prevent a
rescue, of a Tory named Major Beard, on Lynch Creek in Franklin County,
North Carolina. The following account of it is given by John H. Wheeler,
to whom it was communicated by Hon. B. F. Moore, who received it from
the Drake family:
“The origin of lynch-law: During the revolution there was a noted
tory ... in that portion formerly called Bute County, now embraced
within the counties of Franklin and Nash, called Major Beard. Major
John H. Drake lived near Hilliardston; he and his family were decided
whigs. He had a daughter, beautiful and accomplished, by whose charms
Beard was captivated; and the tradition runs, that the handsome figure
and commanding air of Beard had its effect on the young lady,
notwithstanding the difference in politics between him and her father.
On one occasion, Beard encamped for the night near a mill on Swift
Creek. This became known to Major Drake and other whigs, and they
organized a force ... and captured him.... After some consultation it
was resolved to take him as a prisoner to headquarters of Colonel
Seawell, commanding in camp at a ford on Lynch Creek, in Franklin
County, about twenty miles off. He was tied on his horse and carried
under guard. After reaching camp, it was determined to organize a
court-martial, and try him for his life. But before proceeding to
trial, a report came that a strong body of tories were in pursuit to
rescue him; this created a panic, for they knew his popularity and
power, so they hung him. The reported pursuit proved a false alarm,
and it being suggested that as the sentence had been inflicted before
the judgment of the court had been pronounced, therefore it was
illegal. The body was then taken down, the court reorganized, he was
tried, condemned and re-hung by the neck until he was dead.
“The tree on which he was hung stood not far from Rocky Ford, on
Lynch’s Creek; and it became a saying in Franklin, when a person
committed any offence of magnitude, that ‘he ought to be taken to
Lynch Creek’; and so the word ‘Lynch law’ became a fixture in the
English language.”[24]
In passing, the resemblance of this affair to Lydford law rather than
lynch-law is to be noted, and also the fact that Wheeler, in his
“History of North Carolina,” published thirty-three years earlier, gives
an account of the hanging of “Captain Beard about 1778,” but says
nothing about its being in any way connected with the origin of the term
lynch-law. Indeed, according to this earlier account there was nothing
irregular in the proceeding; he was hung in accordance with the ordinary
rules of war. Beard and one of his band, named Porch, who had been
captured with him, “were tried by a court-martial and both were
forthwith hung. Such was the end of Captain Beard.”[25] The two accounts
vary somewhat, but there is no room for doubt as to their having
reference to the same occurrence. In short, the “tradition” in the Drake
family must have arisen between 1851 and 1884. There is no evidence,
further than this statement found in Wheeler’s book, that “Lynch law”
became a fixture in the English language because of a saying common in
Franklin County, North Carolina, that any one who committed a grave
offense “ought to be taken to Lynch Creek.”
Some evidence has recently been brought forward indicating that
lynch-law may have derived its name from Lynch’s Creek, South
Carolina.[26] Some extracts from Boston newspapers in the year 1768,
dated Charlestown, South Carolina, show the existence of “Regulators” at
that time, and mention is made of a meeting that they were to have on
Lynch’s Creek “where it was expected 1,200 would be assembled.” It is
also evident that one of their methods of inflicting punishment was by
whipping. One extract states that “the people called regulators have
lately severely chastised one Lum, who is come to town; but we have not
yet learnt the real cause of this severity to him.” The assertion has
been made, therefore, that lynch-law derived its name from Lynch’s
Creek, South Carolina, because at that place the practice of lynching
began.
The practice which came to be known as “regulating” had its beginning
earlier than 1768, however, and this beginning was not in the
neighborhood of Lynch’s Creek. As early as 1766 it had begun in North
Carolina and had extended from Granville County into Orange and Anson
counties. Up to April, 1768, those who had taken part in these
proceedings in North Carolina were designated by the appellation of the
“Mob,” and seem to have adopted it themselves. But on April 4, 1768, at
a general meeting, they dropped this name and formally adopted the name
of “Regulators.”[27] When this practice of “regulating” was started in
South Carolina it was instituted by Thomas Woodward, Joseph Kirkland,
and Barnaby Pope,[28] who lived in the region between the Catawba and
the Saluda Rivers, and not on the Pedee or Lynch’s Creek. Thus, a
name—that of “Regulation,” not “Lynch Law,”—had been given this practice
before it reached the Pedee section of the Province. If the conduct of
the Regulators in South Carolina was to give the name to the practice of
illegal punishment, it would have been called, not “Lynch Law,” but
“Broad River Justice” or “Savannah Law.”[29]
No evidence has yet been found which shows any connection between “Lynch
Law” and “Regulation” at this time.[30] Alexander Gregg, writing of the
Regulator movement in the Carolinas, makes the statement: “They called
themselves ‘Regulators’; and thus ‘Lynch law’ had its origin at this
period.”[31] Dr. R. W. Gibbes had written eight years earlier than
Gregg: “The Regulation, an association of respectable planters, took the
matter in hand, and enforced order by a system of Lynch law.”[32]
Neither of these writers, however, implies that the Regulation in South
Carolina had anything to do with the origin of the term lynch-law.
Joseph Johnson, in a book published in 1851, gave a brief account of the
Regulators and Schofilites. He says, “the most respectable inhabitants
united to inflict summary justice on the depredators and called
themselves Regulators.”[33] In this connection he does not refer to
lynch-law at all. In another connection he writes: “This process, in
what is now called ‘lynch law,’ was then designated ‘regulating,’ and
the associates for this purpose were called ‘Regulators.’”[34] No
reference to lynch-law is to be found in Ramsay’s History of the
Revolution in South Carolina which was published in 1785. Both of the
accounts given by Wheeler of the occurrence at Lynch Creek, North
Carolina, referred to above, imply that the term lynch-law was not in
use any time previous to the Revolutionary War. As will appear later,
the terms regulation and lynch-law are not found together until a much
later date, and then they are not used in connection with events in the
Carolinas.
Still another “Origin of Lynch’s law” is given in Niles’ Register for
August 8, 1835.[35] An anecdote is related of an occurrence “in
Washington County, Pa., many years ago.” A poaching vagabond, long under
suspicion, was finally detected and told to leave the neighborhood in
twenty-four hours on penalty of prosecution. The poacher refused to
comply and a party of five or six of his neighbors went to his home and
“proceeded to try him in due form, choosing one of their number, a
farmer named Lynch, to be judge.” The judge “decided that the poacher
should be tied up and receive three hundred lashes, ‘well laid on,’ and
then be given twenty-four hours to leave the place under penalty of
receiving three hundred more if found after that time. The first part of
the sentence was inflicted on the spot, with such _good intent_ as to
render its repetition unnecessary. The culprit made off as fast as his
lacerated limbs would permit him.”
Nothing further is known of this farmer named Lynch, who acted as judge
at this impromptu trial, and there is no reason for regarding this
incident as in any way connected with the origin of lynch-law. It is
merely an instance of recourse to summary procedure against an unpopular
individual. It may or may not have been known at the time as punishment
by Lynch’s law.
We now come to the explanation of the origin of the term which has been
most frequently given and which was for years accepted without question.
It is to the effect that lynch-law originally had reference to the kind
of law administered by Charles Lynch, in Virginia, during the latter
part of the Revolutionary War.
It is needless to recount here all the variations in the stories
connecting the origin of lynch-law with the Lynch family in
Virginia.[36] In certain accounts Charles Lynch has been confused with
his older brother, John Lynch, who remained a Quaker all his life and
was the founder of Lynchburg, Virginia. Some accounts refer vaguely to a
Virginia farmer, or planter, by the name of Lynch, whose vigorous
methods of punishing wrongdoers gave rise to the term lynch-law.[37]
Haydn’s Dictionary of Dates (1860) apparently is responsible for the
fiction that this mode of administering justice began about the end of
the seventeenth century and derives its name from John Lynch, a farmer,
who exercised it upon the fugitive slaves and criminals dwelling in the
Dismal Swamp, North Carolina, when they committed outrages upon persons
and property which the law could not promptly repress. This story is
repeated in the editions of 1873 and 1885, and is also given in Harpers’
Popular Cyclopædia of the History of the United States,[38] and seems to
have become generally accepted in France.[39] It is, however, wholly
erroneous.
The movement for independence had from the first a great many opponents
in the mountainous sections of Virginia, and there was a considerable
number of Tories in Bedford County, where Charles Lynch lived.[40] The
unsettled condition of affairs also led many desperadoes to resort to
this section of Virginia. Both Tories and desperadoes harassed the
Continentals and plundered their property with impunity.[41] The prices
paid by both armies for horses made horse-stealing a lucrative practice,
and the inefficiency of the judiciary made punishment practically out of
the question. The county courts were merely examining courts in all such
cases, and the single court for the final trial of felonies sat at
Williamsburg, more than two hundred miles away. To take the prisoners
thither, and the witnesses necessary to convict them, was next to
impossible. Frequently the officers in charge of prisoners would be
attacked by outlaws and forced to release their men, or be captured by
British troops and themselves made prisoners.
It was under these circumstances that Colonel Lynch conferred with some
of his neighbors as to what was best to be done. After deliberation they
decided to take matters into their own hands, to punish lawlessness of
every kind, and so far as possible restore peace and security to their
community. For the purpose of attaining these ends they formed an
organization with Mr. Lynch at the head. Under his direction suspected
persons were arrested and brought to his house, where they were tried by
a court composed of himself, as presiding justice, and his three
neighbors, William Preston, Robert Adams, Jr., and James Callaway,
sitting as associate justices.
The practice of this court was to have the accused brought face to face
with his accusers, permit him to hear the testimony against himself, and
to allow him to defend himself by calling witnesses in his behalf and by
showing mitigating and extenuating circumstances. If acquitted, he was
allowed to go, “often with apologies and reparation.” If convicted, he
was sentenced to receive thirty-nine lashes on the bare back, and if he
did not then shout “Liberty Forever,” to be hanged up by the thumbs
until he did so. The execution of the sentence took place immediately
upon conviction. The condemned was tied to a large walnut tree standing
in Mr. Lynch’s yard and the stripes inflicted—with such vigor, it is
said, that even the stoutest hearted Tory shouted for “Liberty” without
necessitating a resort to further punishment.[42]
The news of the invasion of Virginia by Cornwallis gave the Bedford
Tories strong encouragement and a conspiracy was formed to overthrow the
county organization and seize, for the use of Cornwallis on his arrival,
the stores that Lynch had collected for Greene’s army in North Carolina.
The conspirator’s plans, however, became known to Colonel Lynch,
tradition says through one of their own number, and he had them all
arrested. In the case of these conspirators, who were guilty of a
treasonable offense, a more serious situation presented itself. Lynch
himself was on the point of setting out with his regiment for the east
to oppose the British under Benedict Arnold. It was not wise to inflict
the usual punishment and then give the conspirators their freedom again;
neither could he take them as prisoners along with him on the rapid
march that he was forced to make. After careful deliberation, Colonel
Lynch, as the presiding justice, sentenced them to terms of imprisonment
varying from one to five years. Robert Cowan, who had formerly been a
fellow justice on the county bench and who seems to have been the
ringleader, was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and a fine of
£20,000.[43]
This court, even though it be considered as still the regular county
court, had clearly transcended its powers; the General Court alone had
jurisdiction in cases of treason. After the war, therefore, the Tories
who had suffered at his hands threatened to prosecute Colonel Lynch and
his friends. To avoid lawsuits and as a means of finally settling the
affair, Lynch brought the whole matter before the Virginia legislature.
After a lengthy debate, which, according to Mr. Page, “aroused the
interest of the whole country,” the following act was passed in October,
1782:
“An act to indemnify certain persons in suppressing a conspiracy
against this state.
I. WHEREAS divers evil-disposed persons in the year one thousand seven
hundred and eighty, formed a conspiracy and did actually attempt to
levy war against the commonwealth; and it is represented to the
present general assembly, that William Preston, Robert Adams, junior,
James Callaway, and Charles Lynch, and other faithful citizens, aided
by detachments of volunteers from different parts of the state, did,
by timely and effectual measures, suppress such conspiracy: And
whereas the measures taken for that purpose may not be strictly
warranted by law, although justifiable from the imminence of the
danger;
II. BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED, That the said William Preston, Robert
Adams, junior, James Callaway and Charles Lynch, and all other persons
whatsoever, concerned in suppressing the said conspiracy, or in
advising, issuing, or executing any orders, or measures taken for that
purpose, stand indemnified and exonerated of and from all pains,
penalties, prosecutions, actions, suits, and damages, on account
thereof. And that if any indictment, prosecution, action, or suit,
shall be laid or brought against them, or any of them, for any act or
thing done therein, the defendant, or defendants may plead in bar, or
the general issue, and give this act in evidence.”[44]
“The proceedings in Bedford, which the legislature thus pronounced to be
illegal, but justifiable, were imitated in other parts of the State, and
came to be known by the name of Lynch’s Law. In justice to Colonel
Lynch, it should be remembered that his action was taken at a time when
the State was in the throes of a hostile invasion. The General Court,
before which the conspirators should have been tried, was temporarily
dispersed. Thomas Jefferson, then the governor of the State, was proving
himself peculiarly incompetent to fill the position. The whole executive
department was in a state of partial paralysis. It was, therefore, no
spirit of insubordination or disregard of the law that induced Lynch to
act as he did. There were few men living more inclined than this simple
Quaker farmer to render due respect in word and deed to the established
authorities.”[45]
The old walnut tree on which lynch-law is said to have been first
administered was still standing, in 1900,[46] on the lawn of the Lynch
homestead, two miles from the village of Lynch Station on the Southern
Railway. A part of it was dead but the rest was still vigorous and bore
its annual crop of nuts. The death penalty, however, was never inflicted
under its shadow. Some say that the Quaker proclivities of “Judge
Lynch”[47] prevented him from passing sentence of death; others say that
it was due to his native sense of humanity. Mr. Page presents some
evidence showing that “both custom and sentiment were violently opposed
to visiting capital punishment upon the detected Tory conspirators.”[48]
In the determination of origins it is frequently impossible to obtain
direct evidence bearing on the point in question. In this case there is
direct evidence for connecting the name of Charles Lynch with the origin
of “lynch-law.”[49] In 1817 Judge Spencer Roane wrote in a letter to
William Wirt: “In the year 1792 there were many suits on the south side
of James River, for inflicting Lynch’s law.” Mr. Wirt adds, in a note
explanatory of the words “Lynch’s law,” “Thirty-nine lashes, inflicted
without trial or law, on mere suspicion of guilt, which could not be
regularly proven. This lawless practice, which, sometimes by the order
of a magistrate, sometimes without, prevailed extensively in the upper
counties on James River, took its name from the gentleman who set the
first example of it.”[50] Though Wirt does not mention Charles Lynch by
name, he does say that the lawless practice “prevailed extensively in
the upper counties on James River,” and Charles Lynch was for years
closely identified with the interests of Campbell[51] and Bedford
counties—two of the upper counties on the James River.
Henry Howe, in his “Historical Collections of Virginia,” in a section
entitled “Lynch Law,” says: “At that time (the time of the Revolution),
this country (Campbell County and vicinity) was very thinly settled, and
infested by a lawless band of tories and desperadoes. The necessity of
the case involved desperate measures, and Col. Lynch, then a leading
whig, apprehended and had them punished, without any superfluous
ceremony. Hence the origin of the term ‘Lynch Law.’ This practice of
Lynching continued years after the war, and was applied to many cases of
mere suspicion of guilt, which could not be regularly proven.”[52]
In a book written a few years later than the above, Howe has the
following to say on the same subject: “The Lynch Law, as it is termed,
originated in Virginia at the time of the American Revolution, and was
first adopted by Colonel Lynch against a lawless band of tories and
desperadoes, who infested the country at the base of the Blue Ridge.
This plan was afterwards followed in the west, and its operation was
salutary in ridding the country of miscreants whom the law was not
strong enough to punish. The tribunal of _Squire Birch_, as the person
who personated the judge was called, was established under a tree in the
woods; the culprit being usually found guilty was tied to a tree and
lashed without mercy, and then expelled from the country. In general,
‘_the regulators_’ only exercised this law upon the most base and vile
characters.”[53]
This account given by Howe cannot be considered as wholly independent of
the influence of Wirt. In his “Historical Collections of Virginia,” Howe
quotes from Wirt’s book in substantiation of his statement that the
“practice of Lynching continued years after the war.” On the other hand,
however, the fact that he repeated his assertions in regard to the
origin of “Lynch Law” in emphatic terms in his later book, and therewith
described the operation of “Lynch Law” in the west, is strong evidence
that he had other sources of information than Wirt’s book on the
matter.[54]
An account, entirely independent of any influence from either Wirt or
Howe, is found in “Colonel William Martin’s Narrative of Frontier Life,”
prepared about 1842 for Dr. Lyman C. Draper and now in the Draper MS.
Collections in the Wisconsin State Historical Society Library. It is as
follows:
“In those times there were a great many bad men settled along the
frontiers who by their thefts annoyed the country greatly. Insomuch
that the people entered into combinations to suppress them and formed
companies called regulators. They formed in military style, with
officers, etc.
“They also organized a court and appointed some three or four of their
aged, discreet men judges to try criminal causes, award punishment,
etc. The company would bring up suspected fellows and the court would
try them. But they seldom extended punishment beyond whipping and
driving them from the country, sometimes making them pay for property
stolen, when they had the means.
“This method of breaking up combinations of rogues was first set on
foot by Col. Charles Lynch, of Bedford county, Va., where I was
raised. He and my father were acquainted. (The same man for whom
Lynchburg was named.) This plan was started some seventy or eighty
years ago.[55]
“The measure seemed to be called for from the situation of the country
at the time. And it has been practiced more or less in the settling of
new countries from that time until within a few years past, since the
laws operate with more efficiency. The authorities generally connived
at it from the necessity of the case. And perhaps nowhere has it been
more common than in Tennessee. Lynch at first punished with
thirty-nine stripes, taking, as I suppose, Moses for his model. And
this was for a great while called Lynch’s law, meaning all unlawful
whipping. Any of the old men now in the South and West can tell the
meaning of Lynch’s law.
“Lynch, however, has been improved upon and more severe punishments
sometimes inflicted. I have given this feature of Western history from
the presumption that you may not have known it.”[56]
Such is the strongest evidence bearing directly on the point under
consideration. It is true that Martin’s account, as well as Howe’s, was
not written until more than forty years after the death of Charles
Lynch. It is true, also, that many stories have referred to a man by the
name of Lynch in Virginia, sometimes specifically mentioning Charles
Lynch or Colonel Lynch, at other times naming some other Lynch.[57] But
it is likewise true that it is in this way that tradition has been
persistent in attributing the origin of lynch-law to a member of the
Lynch family in Virginia. Furthermore, since no evidence whatsoever has
been found for tracing the beginning of lynch-law to any other member of
that family, it may be said that tradition has thus persistently pointed
to Colonel Charles Lynch as the first lyncher. Traditions are in general
far from trustworthy, but, on the other hand, they usually have _some_
basis in fact. In this case Wirt’s statement gives, at the very least, a
presumption in favor of the tradition, which facts to the contrary only
can remove.[58]
The earliest use of the expression “Lynch’s law” that is known at the
present time is this one found in Wirt’s book which was published in
1818. Judge Roane wrote that there were many suits in the year 1792 for
inflicting Lynch’s law. From his statement it does not follow that the
term Lynch’s law was in use in the year 1792. It does follow, however,
that the term was at least a localism in Virginia in the year 1817.
Other terms were also in use for summary and illegal punishment in the
period 1780–1830. The following appeared in the Salem Gazette of October
2, 1812: “People who clamored violently against Mr. Adams’ ‘_gag law_’
in ‘99, see nothing to disapprove in the ‘club law’ enacted at
Baltimore, as a substitute for it.—_Messenger._”[59]
In the year 1819 two passages entitled “Summary justice” appeared in
Niles’ Register. They read as follows: “_Summary justice._—A tin pedlar
at Easton, Pa. was discovered to have two negro children in his cart. On
examination, one of the little sufferers was found to have been crammed
in such a manner, that his ear was rubbed off! The people indignantly
rose and cut off the fellow’s ear. I am no advocate for the violation of
the laws, but from my heart I can’t feel sorry for him.—_Village
Recorder._”[60] “_Summary justice._ After a late extensive fire which
happened at Charleston, a fellow was found secreting some goods that had
been stolen during the calamity. The alternative was offered to him,
whether he would be prosecuted at law, or suffer punishment on the spot;
he chose the latter, was tied to a tree, received fifty lashes well laid
on, and got off _clear_, having restored the stolen goods.”[61]
In the year 1822 Niles’ Register contained the following: “_Riot._ A
parcel of Irish laborers employed in the navy yard at Charlestown,
lately attempted to rescue some property of one of their fellows out of
the hands of the sheriff. The affray was a severe one—but ‘club law’ did
not prevail. Captain Hull exposed himself considerably to quell the
riot.”[62]
Writing under the date of November 29, 1819, W. Faux describes an
instance of the use of summary methods against an unpopular individual
in Princeton, Indiana, and says: “The people of the place deputed four
persons to inform him, that unless he quitted the town and the state
immediately, he should receive Lynch’s law, that is, whipping in the
woods.”[63] Under the date of December 16, 1819, referring to “the
Rowdies of Kentucky,” the same author writes: “These regulators are
self-appointed ministers of justice, to punish or destroy those whom the
law cannot touch.”[64]
On July 17, 1824, Niles’ Register published the information that several
murders had been committed in Kentucky “by persons who called themselves
‘regulators.’”[65]
W. N. Blane published in London in 1824 an account of his travels in
America and described “the practice of _Regulating_” that then existed
in parts of Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. He tells how the bands of
Regulators were organized and their methods of inflicting punishment,
but does not use the term lynch or lynch-law.[66]
Judge James Hall, in his “Letters from the West,” published in 1828,
uses the following words: “No commentator has taken any notice of
_Linch’s Law_, which was once the _lex loci_ of the frontier. The
citizens formed themselves into a ‘_regulating company_.’ Sometimes the
sufferers resorted to courts of justice for remuneration, and there have
been instances of heavy damages being recovered of the regulators.”[67]
It thus appears that summary and illegal methods of punishing offenders
were known under various names between 1780 and 1830. The term Lynch’s
law was not exclusively applied to such practices. The evidence
obtainable at present, therefore, indicates that at some time between
1780 and 1817 the term Lynch’s law became a localism in Virginia in the
region of the James River. By the year 1819 it had spread as far west as
Indiana, and by 1828 it had become still more widely used but had not
superseded all other terms for the popular administration of justice.
To the question why or how Lynch’s name came to be attached to this
practice, there is at present no conclusive answer. It may be said that
Colonel Charles Lynch was a prominent man in his community, and when he
adopted extra-legal methods of punishing public offenders during the
troublous times of the Revolution, he no doubt attracted considerable
attention to himself, and thus his name became identified with such
practices. It may also be said that the uniqueness of some of his
punishments, such as compelling the Tories to shout “Liberty forever,”
probably brought his name into prominence with the practice. The fact
remains, however, that no contemporaneous evidence has yet been
discovered which will explain why Lynch’s name came to be applied to the
practice. We know definitely only that the form of the expression was at
first Lynch’s law, and that tradition, supported by all the evidence
that we have, ascribes its origin to Colonel Lynch. Equally certain it
is that Lynch’s law originally signified a whipping for reformatory
purposes with more or less disregard for its legality, and was so used
at a time subsequent to the American Revolution and not before that
time. Evidently the term originated in Virginia, and as the tide of
emigration moved westward it was carried along the frontier where
conditions were such as to encourage the use of extra-legal methods
against public offenders.
This becomes more evident when the early history of the popular
administration of punishment in the United States is taken into account.
A consideration of early lynch-law, or lynch-law down to 1830,
constitutes the following chapter.